Alright, so three more poems on the web.
The first is called "Strange Rain" in the online publication Temenos
The other two are in Denver Syntax, they are:
"The Absence of Psychosis"
"Delinquent Road"
I must say I rather like their formatting. The major advantage of appearing online over print, of course, you can do so much more with how things appear. The black background for Strange Rain for instance, that would be a major hassle for a print magazine.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Poetry Project Reading
So on Wednesday, April 9, I went to a poetry reading at the St. Mark's Poetry Project. The readings were done by Benjamin Friedlander and Anselm Berrigan. It was held in a building adjacent to St. Mark's Church in the Bowery, where interestingly enough, a 19th century vice-president of the United States is buried. I went because my poetry professor recommended it and I figured it was worth going to just to catch a glimpse of flavor of the local poetry scene.
One thing that impressed me was how much a community there is among the poets here in NYC, or at least in Manhattan, though I'm sure some were commuting from Brooklyn, maybe Jersey. The poets knew each other, greeted each other, gave updates on the lives they were living, or at least trying to. There were even a few small children there and I wondered what they must of thought of all the people in black with beards and/or various other forms of unkempt hair, talking in patterns of speech that must seem like twisted versions of Dr. Seuss to them.
Anyway, Benjamin Friedlander went first. I was not a fan of his reading. Part of the problem I think was his technique. He was using poems that involve found text, or something akin to it. He pieced together bits and pieces of words from the Internet, or from conversations, and tried to explore the disconnect between putting two things together that may or may not have any logical connection. More often not.
The problem with the found text or modified text method is that if you do not maintain a general theme, story, or at least focus or point, then the words simply come out of the mouth and the ears quickly tire of them. These kinds of poems degenerate into what I would like to term "Elevator Poetry," where sound, flow, etc. becomes everything and meaning is lost. The dedication to sound is usually what defenders of this kind of poetry cite. However I criticize this as well, because number one, the sound is usually not carried through or explored in the piece. Poets using this method should make songs out of their poetry if they are really going for sound and music and caring little about meaning. The other criticism I have is that this kind of poetry usually loses people's attention after a while and is prone to causing an audience to ether zone out or pelt a poet with paper.
I know that this may not be the avant-garde sentiment, but maybe it is. Sometimes I think I am more radical than the others for demanding a meaning from a text, when others have given up. Some might mistakenly call me a reactionary for thinking this way, however this title would not be accurate in my case, why? Because in my own work I often use the techniques that contemporaries use, but to try and produce a real meaningful effect. The reactionary dismisses the present and does not engage it. This is why reactionaries generally never achieve power in any field. Fascism, using this definition, was not reactionary, but as revolutionary as Leninism, since it engaged the present, albeit to promote the values of the past as they saw them. Likewise, I engage with the present, not to dismiss or mock it, but to learn from it. I agree with Dan Schneider, one learns more from near great poems than great ones, and I think one can learn from even terrible poems than great ones.
What is the value of great poems then? They can be read without shame, that s there value. But enough about elevator poetry. Enough about great, good, mediocre, bad, terrible poetry. Back to the reading.
Anselm Berrigan was much better. I think because he has come of age in the era of appropriating mass culture and Internet texts, he understands how to weave them better. He creates a real text and even though the earlier poems he read tended to go off a little in the direction of elevator poetry, I think he had a much better grip of his subject matter and method. His youth was perhaps an asset. Benjamin Friedlander would have been better if he was younger and more energetic, or so old that simply seeing him talking about odd types of sex and other pop-culture phenomena, perhaps his poems might have worked. But overall I think he tried too hard. Berrigan was more subtle, and I think this got him a better response from the audience.
He read selections from a longer work he is publishing soon, called "have a good one." It is structured into snippets and blocks of text, with the phrase "have a good one," cutting them off and changing the tone, focus, and diction for the next piece, which I suppose could be called a stanza. He read it as if it were one, although maybe it is written continuously on the paper. The poem was entertaining because Berrigan worked with small pieces of text, not grand mish-mash epics. He might also just be a better poet.
One thing that impressed me was how much a community there is among the poets here in NYC, or at least in Manhattan, though I'm sure some were commuting from Brooklyn, maybe Jersey. The poets knew each other, greeted each other, gave updates on the lives they were living, or at least trying to. There were even a few small children there and I wondered what they must of thought of all the people in black with beards and/or various other forms of unkempt hair, talking in patterns of speech that must seem like twisted versions of Dr. Seuss to them.
Anyway, Benjamin Friedlander went first. I was not a fan of his reading. Part of the problem I think was his technique. He was using poems that involve found text, or something akin to it. He pieced together bits and pieces of words from the Internet, or from conversations, and tried to explore the disconnect between putting two things together that may or may not have any logical connection. More often not.
The problem with the found text or modified text method is that if you do not maintain a general theme, story, or at least focus or point, then the words simply come out of the mouth and the ears quickly tire of them. These kinds of poems degenerate into what I would like to term "Elevator Poetry," where sound, flow, etc. becomes everything and meaning is lost. The dedication to sound is usually what defenders of this kind of poetry cite. However I criticize this as well, because number one, the sound is usually not carried through or explored in the piece. Poets using this method should make songs out of their poetry if they are really going for sound and music and caring little about meaning. The other criticism I have is that this kind of poetry usually loses people's attention after a while and is prone to causing an audience to ether zone out or pelt a poet with paper.
I know that this may not be the avant-garde sentiment, but maybe it is. Sometimes I think I am more radical than the others for demanding a meaning from a text, when others have given up. Some might mistakenly call me a reactionary for thinking this way, however this title would not be accurate in my case, why? Because in my own work I often use the techniques that contemporaries use, but to try and produce a real meaningful effect. The reactionary dismisses the present and does not engage it. This is why reactionaries generally never achieve power in any field. Fascism, using this definition, was not reactionary, but as revolutionary as Leninism, since it engaged the present, albeit to promote the values of the past as they saw them. Likewise, I engage with the present, not to dismiss or mock it, but to learn from it. I agree with Dan Schneider, one learns more from near great poems than great ones, and I think one can learn from even terrible poems than great ones.
What is the value of great poems then? They can be read without shame, that s there value. But enough about elevator poetry. Enough about great, good, mediocre, bad, terrible poetry. Back to the reading.
Anselm Berrigan was much better. I think because he has come of age in the era of appropriating mass culture and Internet texts, he understands how to weave them better. He creates a real text and even though the earlier poems he read tended to go off a little in the direction of elevator poetry, I think he had a much better grip of his subject matter and method. His youth was perhaps an asset. Benjamin Friedlander would have been better if he was younger and more energetic, or so old that simply seeing him talking about odd types of sex and other pop-culture phenomena, perhaps his poems might have worked. But overall I think he tried too hard. Berrigan was more subtle, and I think this got him a better response from the audience.
He read selections from a longer work he is publishing soon, called "have a good one." It is structured into snippets and blocks of text, with the phrase "have a good one," cutting them off and changing the tone, focus, and diction for the next piece, which I suppose could be called a stanza. He read it as if it were one, although maybe it is written continuously on the paper. The poem was entertaining because Berrigan worked with small pieces of text, not grand mish-mash epics. He might also just be a better poet.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
West Tenth Launch Party!
Well, what is this handsome Rothko? Just kidding. It's the cover of the first issue of what I hope will be many, of NYU's premier undergraduate literary magazine, West 10th Street. This Friday we will be having our official launch party at 7:00 PM at the Creative Writer's House, 58 West 10th Street, NY,NY. The theme is black, red, and white, so if you want to come wear one of those colors. If you don;t own anything white or black, I guess you could go topless (depending on your race) or somehow bloody yourself. Anyways it should be a good event. We're having poets and fiction writers reading their pieces. All are welcome. If you can't make it, look out for copies of our magazine on shelves, bathroom stalls, used as bookmarks, ask me for a copy if you would like to see one, I think I can photocopy a few.
And no, I don't have any poetry in it. But I helped to select them. There some really promising work by one young poet. Check it out.
Monday, March 31, 2008
A Find
I was digging around my poetry stash and found this poem I wrote as an exercise for my poetry class last year. We were supposed to write lines in iambic pentameter, but I decided not to count syllables and just write in the rhyme pattern I was familar with. I remember reading something that said English speech generally follows that kind of scheme so I went with what I had and wrote something CRAZY
Another Friday in Lent
He went down to the stream
And saw life floating past
He wondered if it was a dream
And how long it would last.
A fish swam up, green and free
It startled him a bit,
Under the reflection of a tree
Seeing he was lost in quite a fit.
The fish cried out, do not be afraid
For this is the world that you have made.
Another Friday in Lent
He went down to the stream
And saw life floating past
He wondered if it was a dream
And how long it would last.
A fish swam up, green and free
It startled him a bit,
Under the reflection of a tree
Seeing he was lost in quite a fit.
The fish cried out, do not be afraid
For this is the world that you have made.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
I AM DOING A POETRY READING
P OET R Y R E A DI N G P O E T RY RE A D I N G PO E T R Y R E A
JOIN US FOR A POETRY READING:
ROB FITTERMAN’S NYU ADVANCED POETRY WORKSHOP
169 BAR, MONDAY 3/31 - 6-8 PM
169 EAST BROADWAY (@ Rutgers Street)
[take the F train to the East Broadway stop—walk 1 block east]
READERS INCLUDE:
SARAH ADLER
WALTER ANCARROW
JANIE BUCKLEY
GABRIEL COREN
DAN DONNELLY
LEAH EVANS
JAMIE LESS
BENJAMIN NARDOLILLI
TAINI SANON
+ special guests
JOIN US FOR A POETRY READING:
ROB FITTERMAN’S NYU ADVANCED POETRY WORKSHOP
169 BAR, MONDAY 3/31 - 6-8 PM
169 EAST BROADWAY (@ Rutgers Street)
[take the F train to the East Broadway stop—walk 1 block east]
READERS INCLUDE:
SARAH ADLER
WALTER ANCARROW
JANIE BUCKLEY
GABRIEL COREN
DAN DONNELLY
LEAH EVANS
JAMIE LESS
BENJAMIN NARDOLILLI
TAINI SANON
+ special guests
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Videos! Videos!
See a Video I made of Ezra Pound, trying to capture the cadences of his voice and such. Thanks to Andrea for the filming, standing as still as she could for 8 minutes. I have 15 views! Most of which are probably me.
As long as I am on it, there are two more videos invovlign my face in one way or another.
This one is based on The Office. Apparently it's a TV show or something, I don't know. I don't watch HBO. I am Sketchy McGee in the back.
And this one is from Torch Day, where I talk about life, love, and my beard.
As long as I am on it, there are two more videos invovlign my face in one way or another.
This one is based on The Office. Apparently it's a TV show or something, I don't know. I don't watch HBO. I am Sketchy McGee in the back.
And this one is from Torch Day, where I talk about life, love, and my beard.
A Poet's Progress
Awesome, two new places that have decided to publish my work. One of them, Word Slaw has two of my poems up right now, and The Maynard, a new journal, will publish two more on April 1, 2008. Just in case any of you were wondering what's become of my writing career.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Americans Rank Lincoln as Top President
Well a new poll by Harris Interactive has come out, and when asked who they think the greatest American President was, respondants chose Abraham Lincoln. He won roughly twenty percent of the votes cast by 2,302 adults in the United States.
The options were somewhat structured. Not every president was included, for some reason, only those recognized previously as "famous," or "great," were allowed to be chosen, like George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Calvin Coolidge. All presidents after FDR were included. Responses were tallied by how many answered "best" or "second best."
However, Lincoln seems to be the only name in its proper place, here is the list as selected by those 2,302 Americans, who seem to have trouble with amassing any collective long-term memory.
10 - George W. Bush
9 - Theodore Roosevelt
8 - Harry S Truman
7 - Thomas Jefferson
6 - Bill Clinton
5 - George Washington
4 - John F. Kennedy
3 - FDR
2 - Ronald Reagan
1 - Abraham Lincoln
Americans seem to suffer from the opposite problem that plagues many of the places in conflict around the world. In Israel, Kosovo, and Northern Ireland, there are long standing blood feuds between different groups that center on issues going back centuries. In Iraq, Sunnis and Shiites are fighting over massacres that took place over a millennium ago. But Americans easily forget it seems, which is good when it keep us from slaughtering each other, but bad when it leads to misplaced adulation.
George W. Bush does not belong on this list, period. He is probably going to go down as one of the worst presidents in American history. There is really no major positive achievement that his administration can lay claim to. He invented a mandate and used it to weaken the constitution, govern through religious fanaticism and patriotic bullying, and has ruined a surplus. He has been bad from any perspective, Liberal, Conservative, Communist, Libertarian, Green, Anarchist, all of them can agree that he has been a terrible influence on the country.
And neither does Clinton. While he was not a terrible president, he was pretty much just a caretaker. None of his major initiatives managed to get through Congress and his style of rule was too tied to polls. Regardless of the whole mess he made on that intern's dress, his presidency was slightly above average, a B- so too speak.
Ronald Reagan might be a good number 10, but only if I was feeling generous. The mess we are dealing with in Afghanistan and Iraq is partly his fault. His administration was probably the most corrupt since that of Harding's, and he did nothing to balance the budget. Victory in the Cold War belongs more to George Marshal, Truman, and Nixon's strategic use of detente and opening up trade with China, than Reagan's posturing. It is Reagan who brought the Christian Right to power, a dangerous development, and who was the first president who governed through his image, and not through any coherent or well thought out policy. His style ushered in Clinton and Bush.
And he raised the drinking age. What a real state's rights conservative libertarian he was!
Okay, this is what I think the top ten should be:
1 - Abraham Lincoln, he fought the Civil War and kept the country together and began the elimination of slavery, though he could not see its abolition through.
2 - George Washington, he ranks he for mostly setting a good precedent. He stepped down after two terms and was able to keep the country together during the rough first years. However in terms of actual legislation, his administration is pretty thin so I have to rank Lincoln higher.
3 - FDR, he held the country together during the Great Depression, and lead the US through World War II, to become the world's great superpower.
4 - Jefferson, doubled the size of the country and balanced the budget. He also represents a good form of pragmatism, not abandoning his ideals as a whole, but willing to keep institutions that were working and necessary, he preserved many of the achievements of the previous Federalist administrations despite being a Democrat.
5 - James K. Polk, although by getting us California and Texas, maybe he did more wrong than good. Still the most successful one term president.
6 - Theodore Roosevelt, who I think still is one of the best examples of strong willed and charismatic leadership founded on pragmatic and still idealistic principles.
7 - Harry S Truman, began turning the tide back during the Cold War, though at the time no one realized it. Probably the best campaigner in American history, winning the 1948 election despite losing two major wings of his party, proving once and for all, Nader did not cost Gore the election, Gore did.
8 - Lyndon Johnson - Simply because he put his party's future aside and supported Civil Rights. Vietnam was a bad decision, and the Great Society had its problems, along with Nixon, perhaps our most tragic of presidents, too ambitious and cut down by their personality flaws.
9 - Woodrow Wilson - America's rise to power was largely through his efforts, and his internationalism is a cornerstone of most president's foreign policy one way or another.
10 - I am having trouble finding people to put here, so it could either be Reagan, Jackson, Eisenhower, or Kennedy.
The options were somewhat structured. Not every president was included, for some reason, only those recognized previously as "famous," or "great," were allowed to be chosen, like George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Calvin Coolidge. All presidents after FDR were included. Responses were tallied by how many answered "best" or "second best."
However, Lincoln seems to be the only name in its proper place, here is the list as selected by those 2,302 Americans, who seem to have trouble with amassing any collective long-term memory.
10 - George W. Bush
9 - Theodore Roosevelt
8 - Harry S Truman
7 - Thomas Jefferson
6 - Bill Clinton
5 - George Washington
4 - John F. Kennedy
3 - FDR
2 - Ronald Reagan
1 - Abraham Lincoln
Americans seem to suffer from the opposite problem that plagues many of the places in conflict around the world. In Israel, Kosovo, and Northern Ireland, there are long standing blood feuds between different groups that center on issues going back centuries. In Iraq, Sunnis and Shiites are fighting over massacres that took place over a millennium ago. But Americans easily forget it seems, which is good when it keep us from slaughtering each other, but bad when it leads to misplaced adulation.
George W. Bush does not belong on this list, period. He is probably going to go down as one of the worst presidents in American history. There is really no major positive achievement that his administration can lay claim to. He invented a mandate and used it to weaken the constitution, govern through religious fanaticism and patriotic bullying, and has ruined a surplus. He has been bad from any perspective, Liberal, Conservative, Communist, Libertarian, Green, Anarchist, all of them can agree that he has been a terrible influence on the country.
And neither does Clinton. While he was not a terrible president, he was pretty much just a caretaker. None of his major initiatives managed to get through Congress and his style of rule was too tied to polls. Regardless of the whole mess he made on that intern's dress, his presidency was slightly above average, a B- so too speak.
Ronald Reagan might be a good number 10, but only if I was feeling generous. The mess we are dealing with in Afghanistan and Iraq is partly his fault. His administration was probably the most corrupt since that of Harding's, and he did nothing to balance the budget. Victory in the Cold War belongs more to George Marshal, Truman, and Nixon's strategic use of detente and opening up trade with China, than Reagan's posturing. It is Reagan who brought the Christian Right to power, a dangerous development, and who was the first president who governed through his image, and not through any coherent or well thought out policy. His style ushered in Clinton and Bush.
And he raised the drinking age. What a real state's rights conservative libertarian he was!
Okay, this is what I think the top ten should be:
1 - Abraham Lincoln, he fought the Civil War and kept the country together and began the elimination of slavery, though he could not see its abolition through.
2 - George Washington, he ranks he for mostly setting a good precedent. He stepped down after two terms and was able to keep the country together during the rough first years. However in terms of actual legislation, his administration is pretty thin so I have to rank Lincoln higher.
3 - FDR, he held the country together during the Great Depression, and lead the US through World War II, to become the world's great superpower.
4 - Jefferson, doubled the size of the country and balanced the budget. He also represents a good form of pragmatism, not abandoning his ideals as a whole, but willing to keep institutions that were working and necessary, he preserved many of the achievements of the previous Federalist administrations despite being a Democrat.
5 - James K. Polk, although by getting us California and Texas, maybe he did more wrong than good. Still the most successful one term president.
6 - Theodore Roosevelt, who I think still is one of the best examples of strong willed and charismatic leadership founded on pragmatic and still idealistic principles.
7 - Harry S Truman, began turning the tide back during the Cold War, though at the time no one realized it. Probably the best campaigner in American history, winning the 1948 election despite losing two major wings of his party, proving once and for all, Nader did not cost Gore the election, Gore did.
8 - Lyndon Johnson - Simply because he put his party's future aside and supported Civil Rights. Vietnam was a bad decision, and the Great Society had its problems, along with Nixon, perhaps our most tragic of presidents, too ambitious and cut down by their personality flaws.
9 - Woodrow Wilson - America's rise to power was largely through his efforts, and his internationalism is a cornerstone of most president's foreign policy one way or another.
10 - I am having trouble finding people to put here, so it could either be Reagan, Jackson, Eisenhower, or Kennedy.
Monday, February 11, 2008
The MACH IV Test
So I took a test to see how Machiavellian I am. It is a few years old, but the idea of what it means to be a "Machiavel" has not changed. Of course it is always been off the mark, since Machiavelli was always more of a republican than an authoritarian, though these days it's easy to confuse the two. The test is alright, even though its basis is a false understanding of Machiavelli, but they needed to tie it to someone and HOBBS-IV just doesn't have the same ring I guess.
1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree
1) Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so.
1 2 3 4 5
I put four down because it makes sense, you tell someone something because you think it is useful.
2) The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear.
1 2 3 4 5
I put a four down in this case because there are situations where it is better for you to tell someone the hard truth, or just plain tell them off.
3) One should take action only when sure it is morally right.
1 2 3 4 5
I put a three because I was unsure how they defined "morally right." My belief is no one ever does anything immoral willingly, that there is a confusion in their hearts or heads. What is moral is what people on some level already want. Now someone else will disagree with them, but they are doing what they think is moral, always. Hitler did what he thought was moral and we bombed the hell of Germany because we felt it was the moral thing to do to stop him.
4) Most people are basically good and kind.
1 2 3 4 5
I was in the middle here, people don't usually go out of their way to screw you, but they also are fairly impotent when it comes to helping others. People are self-interested, but not selfish.
5) It is safest to assume that all people have a vicious streak and it will come out when they are given a chance.
1 2 3 4 5
Plenty of experiments have confirmed this, as has my childhood experiences on the playground when no adults are watching.
6) Honesty is the best policy in all cases.
1 2 3 4 5
Sometimes you have to tell a little lie, but I find that lies get you into more trouble than honesty most of the time.
7) There is no excuse for lying to someone else.
1 2 3 4 5
The old murderer at the door problem, I know Kant would say this, but I believe better to lie to him than let the murderer find out from you where your friend is hiding.
8) Generally speaking, people won't work hard unless they're forced to do so.
1 2 3 4 5
I have noticed this amongst my fellow students. This might only apply to Americans though.
9) All in all, it is better to be humble and honest than to be important and dishonest.
1 2 3 4 5
Dishonesty wins a person no friends and in the end that's what you need if you are going to hold onto anything.
10) When you ask someone to do something for you, it is best to give the real reasons for wanting it rather than giving reasons which carry more weight.
1 2 3 4 5
I always try to make them the same.
11) Most people who get ahead in the world lead clean, moral lives.
1 2 3 4 5
Look at the current administration. I would like to quote Balzac here, "behind every great fortune, there is a crime."
12) Anyone who completely trusts anyone else is asking for trouble.
1 2 3 4 5
But then again, some people like trouble
13) The biggest difference between most criminals and other people is that the criminals are stupid enough to get caught.
1 2 3 4 5
Proof: There is a difference between a bank robber and me. He robs banks. I do not. He could be out on the lam, still not caught, but still would be a criminal. I have not just simply evaded the cops, I have not held up a Wachovia at gunpoint.
14) Most people are brave.
1 2 3 4 5
You see both in Human affairs. So I am going to go with a three
15) It is wise to flatter important people.
1 2 3 4 5
Who would argue with this? It is also wise to be honest when they ask you, but the question isn't trying to find that out.
16) It is possible to be good in all respects.
1 2 3 4 5
You make sacrifices when you are a leader, even just to live with other people requires some ideals to be given up. Why do you think there are so many saints who were hermits or lived in cloisters?
17) P.T. Barnum was wrong when he said that there's a sucker born every minute.
1 2 3 4 5
If 255 people are born in a minute, then one could potentially be a sucker. Statistically I think it is possible.
18) It is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there.
1 2 3 4 5
Yes, it is hard, but that does not mean it is right. A Machiavellian and an idealist could both agree here and draw different conclusions. The former would say "Yes, so..." while the former would answer "Yes, but..."
19) People suffering from incurable diseases should have the choice of being put painlessly to death.
1 2 3 4 5
I don't see what this question is supposed to do. If they are voluntarily ending their lives, I don’t see what that has to do with Machiavellianism. One could believe in euthanasia as a humanist.
20) Most people forget more easily the death of their parents than the loss of their property.
1 2 3 4 5
I've read too many biographies of famous people to believe this. The absences of one or more parents is always mentioned, rarely the loss of a house. Both can be traumatic, but in terms of what people are more likely to actually swear revenge over is the former tragedy.
The test tells me I am a 68 out of a 100, a "high Mach." I think that this test really is not able to make that claim. Several of the questions could rank the same for either a low or high Mach, and 68 is not that far from the center, I feel. Being a high Mach seems like something you have to do fully or else you will end up hating yourself for everything you do and fail to do. I think a high Mach has to be an 80 or 85, at least.
1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree
1) Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so.
1 2 3 4 5
I put four down because it makes sense, you tell someone something because you think it is useful.
2) The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear.
1 2 3 4 5
I put a four down in this case because there are situations where it is better for you to tell someone the hard truth, or just plain tell them off.
3) One should take action only when sure it is morally right.
1 2 3 4 5
I put a three because I was unsure how they defined "morally right." My belief is no one ever does anything immoral willingly, that there is a confusion in their hearts or heads. What is moral is what people on some level already want. Now someone else will disagree with them, but they are doing what they think is moral, always. Hitler did what he thought was moral and we bombed the hell of Germany because we felt it was the moral thing to do to stop him.
4) Most people are basically good and kind.
1 2 3 4 5
I was in the middle here, people don't usually go out of their way to screw you, but they also are fairly impotent when it comes to helping others. People are self-interested, but not selfish.
5) It is safest to assume that all people have a vicious streak and it will come out when they are given a chance.
1 2 3 4 5
Plenty of experiments have confirmed this, as has my childhood experiences on the playground when no adults are watching.
6) Honesty is the best policy in all cases.
1 2 3 4 5
Sometimes you have to tell a little lie, but I find that lies get you into more trouble than honesty most of the time.
7) There is no excuse for lying to someone else.
1 2 3 4 5
The old murderer at the door problem, I know Kant would say this, but I believe better to lie to him than let the murderer find out from you where your friend is hiding.
8) Generally speaking, people won't work hard unless they're forced to do so.
1 2 3 4 5
I have noticed this amongst my fellow students. This might only apply to Americans though.
9) All in all, it is better to be humble and honest than to be important and dishonest.
1 2 3 4 5
Dishonesty wins a person no friends and in the end that's what you need if you are going to hold onto anything.
10) When you ask someone to do something for you, it is best to give the real reasons for wanting it rather than giving reasons which carry more weight.
1 2 3 4 5
I always try to make them the same.
11) Most people who get ahead in the world lead clean, moral lives.
1 2 3 4 5
Look at the current administration. I would like to quote Balzac here, "behind every great fortune, there is a crime."
12) Anyone who completely trusts anyone else is asking for trouble.
1 2 3 4 5
But then again, some people like trouble
13) The biggest difference between most criminals and other people is that the criminals are stupid enough to get caught.
1 2 3 4 5
Proof: There is a difference between a bank robber and me. He robs banks. I do not. He could be out on the lam, still not caught, but still would be a criminal. I have not just simply evaded the cops, I have not held up a Wachovia at gunpoint.
14) Most people are brave.
1 2 3 4 5
You see both in Human affairs. So I am going to go with a three
15) It is wise to flatter important people.
1 2 3 4 5
Who would argue with this? It is also wise to be honest when they ask you, but the question isn't trying to find that out.
16) It is possible to be good in all respects.
1 2 3 4 5
You make sacrifices when you are a leader, even just to live with other people requires some ideals to be given up. Why do you think there are so many saints who were hermits or lived in cloisters?
17) P.T. Barnum was wrong when he said that there's a sucker born every minute.
1 2 3 4 5
If 255 people are born in a minute, then one could potentially be a sucker. Statistically I think it is possible.
18) It is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there.
1 2 3 4 5
Yes, it is hard, but that does not mean it is right. A Machiavellian and an idealist could both agree here and draw different conclusions. The former would say "Yes, so..." while the former would answer "Yes, but..."
19) People suffering from incurable diseases should have the choice of being put painlessly to death.
1 2 3 4 5
I don't see what this question is supposed to do. If they are voluntarily ending their lives, I don’t see what that has to do with Machiavellianism. One could believe in euthanasia as a humanist.
20) Most people forget more easily the death of their parents than the loss of their property.
1 2 3 4 5
I've read too many biographies of famous people to believe this. The absences of one or more parents is always mentioned, rarely the loss of a house. Both can be traumatic, but in terms of what people are more likely to actually swear revenge over is the former tragedy.
The test tells me I am a 68 out of a 100, a "high Mach." I think that this test really is not able to make that claim. Several of the questions could rank the same for either a low or high Mach, and 68 is not that far from the center, I feel. Being a high Mach seems like something you have to do fully or else you will end up hating yourself for everything you do and fail to do. I think a high Mach has to be an 80 or 85, at least.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
A wikiHow Article
How to Lose a World War from wikiHow - The How to Manual That You Can Edit
It isn't as easy as it sounds, but there are two basic ways to do this.
It isn't as easy as it sounds, but there are two basic ways to do this.
Steps
- 1. Invade Russia, or
- 2. Attack the USA
Tips
- Make sure you don't have lots of spare oil all over the place.
- You might want to distract yourself with a genocide.
- Beware of badgers.
Warnings
- Attacking Poland is not an effective substitute for invading Russia
- Neither does Canada count as the USA
Article provided by wikiHow, a collaborative writing project to build the world's largest, highest quality how-to manual. Please edit this article and find author credits at the original wikiHow article on How to Lose a World War. All content on wikiHow can be shared under a Creative Commons license.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
"Simple Use of a Substance"
Cerulean Rain, a new literary journal, has a poem by yours truly in the first issue. Check it out.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Thoughts on Atheism, Theism and Agnosticism, Part V
Well, I am going to resurrect (pun probably intended) this old set of essays because, well I have a lot of free time on my hands. Of course this does not mean I will kneeling down and sitting in prayer, but rather continuing in my analysis of the atheism vs. theism debate, or should I say more accurately WAR, given the way that the vitriol on both sides has recently increased, mostly due to the fact that Atheist writers and apologists, who largely ignored theist attacks against them until now, have begun turning out book after book with titles designed to inspire their fellow non-believers, and inspiring fear and hatred among fervent theists.
Let's take a look at what trend I'm talking about:
This is George H. Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God. From the Amazon site, it seems to have come out in 1980. It seems fairly non-combative, almost part of a legal argument and not something heated, purely philosophical. If you disagree with the author, fine, you can go and believe in God, he's not going to hurt you or haunt you in your dreams. On an added not the color scheme reminds me of NYU, where purple and white are the school colors and they like to throw yellow in to grab your eye (and your dollar).
Here is another atheist classic, perhaps the first, Bertrand Russell's 1927 "Why I am Not a Christian." The cover design hints at the religiosity of the text, but it is not overpowering. One is led to think that he is taking about Christianity as if it were a hobby of sorts. The contorted shape and the cross in middle slightly resembles a candy wrapper with the sweet taken out and devoured. The title is a simple declaration, part of a conversation. If you want to sit down and learn why the author is not a Christian over a cup of tea, fine, but if not, well then that's okay too.
Since the beginning of religion, particularly theistic religions, those who have refused to believe have been called atheists, often inaccurately (as was the case with early Christians for not believing in the Roman pantheon of Gods). They were tortured, exiled, forced to convert, and even killed. But throughout history, Atheists generally have kept their cool. That notable exception was of course, the Marxists, who went after the religious as much as the religious had gone after freethinkers previously, as well as the radical French Republicans, who most of today's religious people believe all atheists are inspired by and want to emulate.
But like I said earlier, Atheists have generally kept themselves out of the limelight, wishing to be left alone and to educate all those willing to listen. This however has changed, and it is reflected in the publishing world. There are two main reasons I think for this:
(Forgive the awkward pasting job) 9-11 and the rise of the evangelical (and conservative Christian vote in general) I think have caused atheists to remember that religious beliefs are not just abstract things. They are value systems that are the basis for action, unfortunately action that causes harm to other believers as well as to atheists. Watching the rise of Islamic terrorism and calls to establish theocracies through the Muslim world, atheists, I believe, have had to sit back and think about just how damaging religion can be. It is no longer about the inquisition and the Crusades, but about things going on today. Likewise the rise of W. Bush and his cohorts demonstrates hostility to the secular values that atheists want to see guiding American domestic and foreign policy.
Consequently, there has been a rise in books whose purpose is to rally fellow non-believers and make them understand what is at stake in the modern age, hoping to avoiding a return to the 17th century wars of religion. We see titles the are meant to be provocative and refuse to be nice or make compromises. Is this a bad thing? I don't think so. Militant atheists are often blamed for forcing their beliefs on others, but I have never heard any Atheist American, no matter how militant utter anything like the following:
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
- President George H.W. Bush in 1988
Many of you will be familair with the titles that have been published so far:
Well, how have things changed! We have Atheism with muscles now, Atheism that doesn't just debate in university dorm rooms or bring cases to the Supreme Court, this is an Atheism for the average man, who like his non belief like his liquor, strong and undiluted! These books take no prisoners! They are bleak and sleek, killers of God. I suppose that publishers have discovered good money can be made in rational argument, fanning the flames of the old disputes about the existence of God. They can sell a religious books on one hand, and atheist books on the other, apologetics and screeds, a great business.
I do wonder if it is all about money, about selling and not reaching. Perhaps Dawkins' originally wanted to title his book: "Some Thoughts Regarding the Non-Existence of a Popular Supreme Being." But then the agents and editors told him it wouldn't sell in Peoria if he called it that so he sexed up the title. With Hitchens, I'm sure that he had wanted to go it something worse. "God is not great, He's a Bastard, Worse than Mother Teresa."
Let's take a look at what trend I'm talking about:
This is George H. Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God. From the Amazon site, it seems to have come out in 1980. It seems fairly non-combative, almost part of a legal argument and not something heated, purely philosophical. If you disagree with the author, fine, you can go and believe in God, he's not going to hurt you or haunt you in your dreams. On an added not the color scheme reminds me of NYU, where purple and white are the school colors and they like to throw yellow in to grab your eye (and your dollar).
Here is another atheist classic, perhaps the first, Bertrand Russell's 1927 "Why I am Not a Christian." The cover design hints at the religiosity of the text, but it is not overpowering. One is led to think that he is taking about Christianity as if it were a hobby of sorts. The contorted shape and the cross in middle slightly resembles a candy wrapper with the sweet taken out and devoured. The title is a simple declaration, part of a conversation. If you want to sit down and learn why the author is not a Christian over a cup of tea, fine, but if not, well then that's okay too.
Since the beginning of religion, particularly theistic religions, those who have refused to believe have been called atheists, often inaccurately (as was the case with early Christians for not believing in the Roman pantheon of Gods). They were tortured, exiled, forced to convert, and even killed. But throughout history, Atheists generally have kept their cool. That notable exception was of course, the Marxists, who went after the religious as much as the religious had gone after freethinkers previously, as well as the radical French Republicans, who most of today's religious people believe all atheists are inspired by and want to emulate.
But like I said earlier, Atheists have generally kept themselves out of the limelight, wishing to be left alone and to educate all those willing to listen. This however has changed, and it is reflected in the publishing world. There are two main reasons I think for this:
(Forgive the awkward pasting job) 9-11 and the rise of the evangelical (and conservative Christian vote in general) I think have caused atheists to remember that religious beliefs are not just abstract things. They are value systems that are the basis for action, unfortunately action that causes harm to other believers as well as to atheists. Watching the rise of Islamic terrorism and calls to establish theocracies through the Muslim world, atheists, I believe, have had to sit back and think about just how damaging religion can be. It is no longer about the inquisition and the Crusades, but about things going on today. Likewise the rise of W. Bush and his cohorts demonstrates hostility to the secular values that atheists want to see guiding American domestic and foreign policy.
Consequently, there has been a rise in books whose purpose is to rally fellow non-believers and make them understand what is at stake in the modern age, hoping to avoiding a return to the 17th century wars of religion. We see titles the are meant to be provocative and refuse to be nice or make compromises. Is this a bad thing? I don't think so. Militant atheists are often blamed for forcing their beliefs on others, but I have never heard any Atheist American, no matter how militant utter anything like the following:
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
- President George H.W. Bush in 1988
Many of you will be familair with the titles that have been published so far:
Well, how have things changed! We have Atheism with muscles now, Atheism that doesn't just debate in university dorm rooms or bring cases to the Supreme Court, this is an Atheism for the average man, who like his non belief like his liquor, strong and undiluted! These books take no prisoners! They are bleak and sleek, killers of God. I suppose that publishers have discovered good money can be made in rational argument, fanning the flames of the old disputes about the existence of God. They can sell a religious books on one hand, and atheist books on the other, apologetics and screeds, a great business.
I do wonder if it is all about money, about selling and not reaching. Perhaps Dawkins' originally wanted to title his book: "Some Thoughts Regarding the Non-Existence of a Popular Supreme Being." But then the agents and editors told him it wouldn't sell in Peoria if he called it that so he sexed up the title. With Hitchens, I'm sure that he had wanted to go it something worse. "God is not great, He's a Bastard, Worse than Mother Teresa."
Separated From Birth?
Well, judge for yourselves
The image on the top is of Bob Dylan, the bottom is of Ezra Pound. One was Jewish, the other an anti-Semite, one turned to the troubadours of old, the other was a modern one. One did great work for others, while the other had his work made great by them. Thanks to Andrea for the pointing the similarity out and supplying me the links.
The image on the top is of Bob Dylan, the bottom is of Ezra Pound. One was Jewish, the other an anti-Semite, one turned to the troubadours of old, the other was a modern one. One did great work for others, while the other had his work made great by them. Thanks to Andrea for the pointing the similarity out and supplying me the links.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
RIP Harry the Pig
Well, sad news. Perhaps tasty news in a sense, but mostly sad. Sad not in the sense that I am crying or losing sleeping, but maybe more just a little disappointed. I found out on Christmas Eve (that's December 24th for all you ultra-secularists out there and Jews)that Harry the Pig, pet pig for my Aunt Chris out in Kansas City, passed away.
I assume it was a peaceful death. She has dogs but they were not responsible. No autopsy has been performed though, so the possibility of being poisoned will never be solved. Of course who would want to poison such an adorable creature?
He was a pot-bellied Vietnamese pig who legend has it, came from the foothills of the Mekong, or a whorehouse in Saigon, who wanting a better life, traveled on a rickety boat first to Malaysia, then Australia, then back to Vietnam, and then finally, to Kansas, where my cousin Trey found him and soon he became an almost accepted member of the Hornbeck clan. That's no optical illusion (or allusion) you are seeing. He really was that front heavy, looking like a tube of toothpaste that had been squeezed too much on one end. He lived off dog food and dog treats, and was known for his biting prowess (ask my sister Anne.) He was the highlight of our vacations out west, often pausing beneath the trampoline my cousins owned while we jumped up and down and landed on his hairy back.
Now I've been home, and bored, and so have decided to re-imagine Harry. I have dubbed him a pig of mystery, capable of assuming many different identities and disguises. A post-Modern pig, as it were. Yesterday I began trying to turn him into Napoleon from Animal Farm. I gave him a moustache, monocle, goatee, and bowler hat, but that left the rest of his sausage shaped body unadorned. For some reason I made him into a Nazi pig. I guess I figured that it would be natural for a pig to be an anti-Semite.
I felt sorry for Harry, and decided instead that he should be imagined as a tough sort of creature. He was always able to keep up with the dogs and never let any of us kids tell him what to do. He was always in control, sitting (or sleeping) mighty in the little house that the Hornbecks let him use. So, I decided to make him a punk pig.
I admit I started out trying to make him like Mr. T. I guess I ended up turning him into a white trash punk. This is not to downplay the more delicate and beautiful elements of Harry the pig, who was known to be quite stylish and dainty at times. This was a picture I recreated from memory of one occasion I saw him getting ready for the big pig ball, where he would meet his own prince charming.
Still, I had to revel in Harry's ancestry, his roots, his political leanings. It was wrong to forget where he came from, where his bloodlines began. I actually wrote about him to the government of the People's Republic of Vietnam, and they dug through their files and we both learned that Henry was used as a VC base during the war with America. This could have potentially caused Harry to end up in jail, or worse, bacon, ham, and sausage. But luckily for him this picture was never shown to anyone, including my aunt and uncle, in the states:
I assume it was a peaceful death. She has dogs but they were not responsible. No autopsy has been performed though, so the possibility of being poisoned will never be solved. Of course who would want to poison such an adorable creature?
He was a pot-bellied Vietnamese pig who legend has it, came from the foothills of the Mekong, or a whorehouse in Saigon, who wanting a better life, traveled on a rickety boat first to Malaysia, then Australia, then back to Vietnam, and then finally, to Kansas, where my cousin Trey found him and soon he became an almost accepted member of the Hornbeck clan. That's no optical illusion (or allusion) you are seeing. He really was that front heavy, looking like a tube of toothpaste that had been squeezed too much on one end. He lived off dog food and dog treats, and was known for his biting prowess (ask my sister Anne.) He was the highlight of our vacations out west, often pausing beneath the trampoline my cousins owned while we jumped up and down and landed on his hairy back.
Now I've been home, and bored, and so have decided to re-imagine Harry. I have dubbed him a pig of mystery, capable of assuming many different identities and disguises. A post-Modern pig, as it were. Yesterday I began trying to turn him into Napoleon from Animal Farm. I gave him a moustache, monocle, goatee, and bowler hat, but that left the rest of his sausage shaped body unadorned. For some reason I made him into a Nazi pig. I guess I figured that it would be natural for a pig to be an anti-Semite.
I felt sorry for Harry, and decided instead that he should be imagined as a tough sort of creature. He was always able to keep up with the dogs and never let any of us kids tell him what to do. He was always in control, sitting (or sleeping) mighty in the little house that the Hornbecks let him use. So, I decided to make him a punk pig.
I admit I started out trying to make him like Mr. T. I guess I ended up turning him into a white trash punk. This is not to downplay the more delicate and beautiful elements of Harry the pig, who was known to be quite stylish and dainty at times. This was a picture I recreated from memory of one occasion I saw him getting ready for the big pig ball, where he would meet his own prince charming.
Still, I had to revel in Harry's ancestry, his roots, his political leanings. It was wrong to forget where he came from, where his bloodlines began. I actually wrote about him to the government of the People's Republic of Vietnam, and they dug through their files and we both learned that Henry was used as a VC base during the war with America. This could have potentially caused Harry to end up in jail, or worse, bacon, ham, and sausage. But luckily for him this picture was never shown to anyone, including my aunt and uncle, in the states:
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Hello
Well it has been a while since this blog has been updated, and I shall remedy this situation. Expect more groundbreaking essays and critical work, humour examinations of daily life, and possibly a poem or two. The big project this winter break will be to finish my novel Three Days in September, teach myself Italian again, evaluate poems for the undergrad journal West 10th Street, and continue submitting things for literary magazines. Check out a poem a wrote for Cerulean Rain's first upcoming issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
